Cybercrimes when blogging

It is interesting, reading, about the love of free speech and what our Constitution protects, what we call free speech. And yes we do want to express ourselves, but there are limitations on that first amendment right. Speech that is misleading, threatening, or rallying to do harm to a person is restricted by the government. So therefore, it makes sense that a business that is doing business on a globalized net work would quickly remove itself from participating in such restricted behavior. Because, the government does not like for commerce to be interfered with the Commerce Clause would be invoked to protect individuals from constitutional violations such, as discrimination, provided by the the 14th amendment in shepherding such businesses that do not comply.


Furthermore 2002, the Council of Europe made it illegal to incite hatred or discrimination through promoting or advocating such acts with publication or distribution of such materials on the Internet. The United States Constitution did not sign on because of its First Amendment protection of hate speech and were unwilling to endorse the addition to the treaty against cybercrimes. Nevertheless, with the United States allowing hate speech on the Internet,it weaken enforcement of other countries' citizens illegal actitivity. In other words, other countries citizens could use the sites of United States which are protected by the first amendment right.
so the problems becomes, if one country has the authority to ban and the other country not to ban,
where does the user prohibitive activity lands and did the user leave enough footprints or presence with the country banning the activity as legal issues. Which is huge jurisdiction mess.

Nevertheless, the United States government is not stupid and fully understands it has troubled folks using the the Internet and will not tolerate threats. According to the United State Supreme Court, "Protected hate speech falls away from its protection, however, when this speech becomes a "true threat" - any hate speech directed at a specific person in the form of a threat of abuse or violence. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 393(1992). In addition, 18 U.S.C. 875(c) states that "whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both." See CAN YOU YAHOO!? THE INTERNET'S DIGITAL FENCES . The article goes on to say,
"[e]videntiary proof is required to show that a reasonable person would perceive the defendant's transmitted message as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm. In applying this law to messages sent on the Internet, a hate-laden message would have to be directed at a specific person and the message would have to contain a specific threat."

When naming an individual directly in print it becomes a threat to the person right to privacy, protected by the fourth amendment. In addition, because a threat is aimed at that person it should be enough to show intent by the user to inflict some type of harm. If the United States government and some of its citizens really believes in their war against terror, the Council of Europe treaty making it illegal for hate speech with threats on the Internet would be supported wholeheartedly.